![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
tridus.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI think many of us have dealt with government bureaucracy at one point or another. The incidents that tend to stick out are the ones where bureaucrats come up with something so out of touch with reality, that people can't understand HOW it could possibly happen. TSA comes to mind. Security isn't special in this regard, this is just a bureaucracy run amok. But it's not the only example, we can also look at what happens when a person in my home province of New Brunswick, Canada, tries to build a house.
The problem with the bureaucracy is that it's mostly focused on process. Too often the outcome doesn't matter, so long as the "process" and "procedure" was followed correctly. If you wind up with a completely insane outcome at the end? Well hey, we followed the process!
That attitude comes about because bureaucracies are by their nature risk-adverse. That is made worse by politicians piling on endless regulations, usually talking about things like "fairness" and "transparency". But that's not what you get at the end. The real result is simply to ensure nobody does things independently.
Purchasing rules are a great example. One time (several years ago) someone came to us in IT and asked if they could get their computer upgraded to run dual monitors, so they could run a projector and their screen at once. No problem, I tell them. I'll walk down the street, get the $60 part, and have it done in an hour.
That is until my supervisor stops me, and tells me that we can't do that. The store down the street isn't an approved vendor, and buying there could be a conflict of interest, or corruption, because I know the guy at the counter. Of course I know him, this city only has a couple of decent computer hardware shops! But alright. We'll try to find an approved vendor with the part.
Oh wait, my supervisor stops me again. The part isn't in the buyers guide. So what part is? Somehow we wound up buying a $300 VGA splitter cable (the approved part) from an approved vendor in an approved fashion, instead of a $60 video card upgrade that would have done the job just as effectively. But hey, at least we avoided the foul stench of corruption that would certainly have come from saving the taxpayers $240! (The same thing happens on big projects, incidentally. If you've ever wondered why so many big projects go over-budget, it's because the estimates are deliberately lowballed. Everybody knows that, but the tender rules don't let the bureaucracy say "this bid is total nonsense." So it keeps happening.)
Over time, this gets internalized and dealt with by people becoming hyper-focused only on their job and on the policies around it, not on the overall goal. Security experts come up with security rules that might theoretically boost security, but will destroy the ability for anybody to get work done using the system in question. (To avoid embarrassing my present employer, I will not give an example publically... though I have some great ones.) Somebody else now has to go argue with the management level above the security people to convince them that this can't actually happen. Which creates five rounds of meetings as it works through the various layers of management, back to the security people, then back around again.
What this hyper-focus gets you is poor decisions. Government building inspectors spending years picking on an elderly couple for not following rules about stamped lumber, without thinking about minor details like "is the house actually dangerous?" They've completely lost sight of the big picture, and are just stuck wading through details. When TSA comes up with the idea of spending billions on scanners and then molesting people to try and force them into the scanners, do you think anybody in the room stood up and said "you know, this kind of stuff is going to cost billions and damage the entire airline industry, with negligible security benefits. Let's think of something else"? Maybe, but they apparently couldn't win enough people over.
So what's the solution? There's two things that need to happen:
1. Politicians need to step in. Even if they do nothing but bicker amongst each other most of the time, elected officials have a useful function in that they hold the leash on the bureaucracy. They could stop this nonsense VERY quickly. Sometimes they do, and when they do it snaps the bureaucracy back a few steps.
2. We (you) as a public need to be more willing to entertain the risk of bad decisions. Most of the rules that prevent people in the bureaucracy from using their brains stemmed from good intentions, for fear of things like corruption. But when you legislate out any possibility of corruption, you've removed any human judgment from the process. But judgment is exactly what we need more of. Had someone inspecting the house been empowered to say "yes it broke these rules, but it's perfectly safe so we're going to cite you with a warning and let you go on about your business," untold tens of thousands of dollars in employee time and court costs would have been saved. Not to mention the public good of not harassing an elderly couple for no good reason.
The vast majority of the time, people make the right decision. We need to empower them to do it again.
Thoughts? Flames?
(This might sound kind of ranty, and I guess it is. Most of the time I really like my job in the government. It's good people, good work, and sometimes we get to do some public good. But we could do a lot more then we do, and it infuriates me when an obvious public benefit can't be realized because some manager with no knowledge of the subject blocked it due to some policy written in 1916.)
The problem with the bureaucracy is that it's mostly focused on process. Too often the outcome doesn't matter, so long as the "process" and "procedure" was followed correctly. If you wind up with a completely insane outcome at the end? Well hey, we followed the process!
That attitude comes about because bureaucracies are by their nature risk-adverse. That is made worse by politicians piling on endless regulations, usually talking about things like "fairness" and "transparency". But that's not what you get at the end. The real result is simply to ensure nobody does things independently.
Purchasing rules are a great example. One time (several years ago) someone came to us in IT and asked if they could get their computer upgraded to run dual monitors, so they could run a projector and their screen at once. No problem, I tell them. I'll walk down the street, get the $60 part, and have it done in an hour.
That is until my supervisor stops me, and tells me that we can't do that. The store down the street isn't an approved vendor, and buying there could be a conflict of interest, or corruption, because I know the guy at the counter. Of course I know him, this city only has a couple of decent computer hardware shops! But alright. We'll try to find an approved vendor with the part.
Oh wait, my supervisor stops me again. The part isn't in the buyers guide. So what part is? Somehow we wound up buying a $300 VGA splitter cable (the approved part) from an approved vendor in an approved fashion, instead of a $60 video card upgrade that would have done the job just as effectively. But hey, at least we avoided the foul stench of corruption that would certainly have come from saving the taxpayers $240! (The same thing happens on big projects, incidentally. If you've ever wondered why so many big projects go over-budget, it's because the estimates are deliberately lowballed. Everybody knows that, but the tender rules don't let the bureaucracy say "this bid is total nonsense." So it keeps happening.)
Over time, this gets internalized and dealt with by people becoming hyper-focused only on their job and on the policies around it, not on the overall goal. Security experts come up with security rules that might theoretically boost security, but will destroy the ability for anybody to get work done using the system in question. (To avoid embarrassing my present employer, I will not give an example publically... though I have some great ones.) Somebody else now has to go argue with the management level above the security people to convince them that this can't actually happen. Which creates five rounds of meetings as it works through the various layers of management, back to the security people, then back around again.
What this hyper-focus gets you is poor decisions. Government building inspectors spending years picking on an elderly couple for not following rules about stamped lumber, without thinking about minor details like "is the house actually dangerous?" They've completely lost sight of the big picture, and are just stuck wading through details. When TSA comes up with the idea of spending billions on scanners and then molesting people to try and force them into the scanners, do you think anybody in the room stood up and said "you know, this kind of stuff is going to cost billions and damage the entire airline industry, with negligible security benefits. Let's think of something else"? Maybe, but they apparently couldn't win enough people over.
So what's the solution? There's two things that need to happen:
1. Politicians need to step in. Even if they do nothing but bicker amongst each other most of the time, elected officials have a useful function in that they hold the leash on the bureaucracy. They could stop this nonsense VERY quickly. Sometimes they do, and when they do it snaps the bureaucracy back a few steps.
2. We (you) as a public need to be more willing to entertain the risk of bad decisions. Most of the rules that prevent people in the bureaucracy from using their brains stemmed from good intentions, for fear of things like corruption. But when you legislate out any possibility of corruption, you've removed any human judgment from the process. But judgment is exactly what we need more of. Had someone inspecting the house been empowered to say "yes it broke these rules, but it's perfectly safe so we're going to cite you with a warning and let you go on about your business," untold tens of thousands of dollars in employee time and court costs would have been saved. Not to mention the public good of not harassing an elderly couple for no good reason.
The vast majority of the time, people make the right decision. We need to empower them to do it again.
Thoughts? Flames?
(This might sound kind of ranty, and I guess it is. Most of the time I really like my job in the government. It's good people, good work, and sometimes we get to do some public good. But we could do a lot more then we do, and it infuriates me when an obvious public benefit can't be realized because some manager with no knowledge of the subject blocked it due to some policy written in 1916.)
(no subject)
Date: 17/11/10 04:01 (UTC)"We will rarely, if ever, conduct an evolution exactly the way it was originally developed."
The inability to adapt to unforeseen consequences is one of bureaucracy's worst flaws. The problem is that they often cannot adapt or flex as it is their task to enforce regulations made by the legislature as closely to the letter as possible. The cause of their failure, therefore, appears to be a disconnect between the legislators and the bureaucrats tasked with enforcing the laws they pass. Do you believe involving the relevant agencies in the decision-making process would help matters or do you believe that it would only worsen them?
(no subject)
Date: 17/11/10 16:27 (UTC)Policy needs to be written involving the people who actually understand the work that will be impacted by it, otherwise you get a fair amount of nonsense. There's nothing worse then politicians and the most senior bureaucrats (who work with the politicians) getting together, coming up with something, and passing a new law only to spring it on the rest of us and then be told that they just banned water quality testing by accident. (That one is a made up example, but this type of thing does happen.)
So in that sense, yes you need people involved. But you need the right people. If you try to bring every relevant agency in and craft a policy that covers every situation, what you get is deadlock as every agency talks amongst themselves after every proposal. It takes years to get anything done that way. Then when you Do finish it, you get a policy so complicated that nobody can understand it, and following it costs a fortune.
It's a hard thing to get right, which is why I much prefer objectives and guidelines rather then policy and procedures. Tell me what goal you're trying to accomplish, and then let the experts figure out how to do it. That's what you pay us for.
(IT is really bad for that type of thing. Software companies like to pitch product to senior managers because they can use buzzwords and glossy brochures to propose all sorts of benefits. Experienced IT staff are much better at seeing through the bullshit. So whenever management comes in and says "hey we're getting X software!", everybody in IT groans. It's usually the worst choice for the job and was picked for all the wrong reasons.
Had they instead said "we need something to do this, find us the tools", we could have gotten better stuff for cheaper.)
(no subject)
Date: 17/11/10 21:20 (UTC)I was first recommended that book in the software testing class I am currently taking. Testing is probably the most critical part of software development because a product is harmful to both buyer and seller if it has major undiscovered flaws. One thing I've learned from the class is that while you should create a test plan early in the development process, you shouldn't view that plan as a guide, not a straitjacket. That approach is explained rather succinctly in that book.